The cost of the Rumsfeld Doctrine.

[llad12]

If anything, Rumsfeld has my admiration - he wants to eliminate the hidebound, blinders-on military like Shinseki and White that practice what is called 'fighting the last war'. I know Americans (and liberals in particular) suffer from ADD, but doesn't anyone remember how much crap Rummy took for ditching the Crusader self-propelled artillery program? And that was crap from both political sides - he practically had a revolution on his hands.

Admiration for Rumsfeld? Be glad you're not on patrol in Falujah ...

Consider this article from the "Hack"

Thin Skins Bleed Easily
By David H. Hackworth



The central theme of Sun Tzu’s timeless book, The Art of War, is for commanders to take care of their troops. If one of his generals had sent warriors into battle with defective chariots, I’ll bet you a fortune cookie that the offender’s head would have quickly decorated the end of a pike.



But that’s far from the case in the 2004 U.S. Army. And a classic example of leadership negligence is our soldiers’ current chariot, the Humvee.



As early as Oct. 3, 1993, the Ranger fight in downtown Mogadishu demonstrated the added value of armored Humvees. Subsequent shoot’em-ups in ex-Yugoslavia proved once again how effectively this rugged vehicle protects our grunts.



Yet the high brass, from SecDef Bill Cohen to Donald Rumsfeld to almost a generation of generals, never bothered to adjust their budgets to buy more armored Humvees. And today, troops are being killed and wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan because there aren’t enough of these bullet-and-shrapnel-stoppers to go around.



Why is the armored Humvee in such short supply when after-action reports have been shouting its praises since 1993?



For sure, there’s been no shortage of cash. Since the need for these obviously essential lifesavers became apparent, the Pentagon has ordered more than $5 trillion of toys – from irrelevant big-ticket items like Star Wars II, to fleets of VIP jets to fly generals and politicians to and fro, to Gen. Tommy Franks spending almost half a million dollars on a VIP show-and-tell stage he had sent from the USA to Qatar so he could spin the Iraq War in a slick “Today†show-like setting.



Meanwhile, in this high-tech day and age, the troops are actually back to the same old sandbags and jury-rigged plates of steel welded to their vehicles that my recon platoon used at the end of World War II when we were fighting Tito’s insurgents in northern Italy.



And as the brass ease into the blame game, the thing that frosts me is that no one is being held accountable. Not one head has fallen as legs and arms keep getting blown off and more and more body bags are zipped.



The logisticians are saying the senior commanders didn’t tell them what the requirements were. And the combat skippers are saying that the nature of the war changed from slamming Saddam with an iron fist to fighting guerrillas who use rocket-propelled grenades and improvised explosive devices as their weapons of choice.



I don’t buy this bureaucratic game of passing the hot grenade. Long before Saddam’s statue came toppling down in Baghdad a year ago this month, it should have been clear to any career officer with any knowledge of guerrilla warfare that we were about to find ourselves smack in the middle of an insurgent war and needed armored vehicles to more adequately protect our warriors.



But the Pentagon’s Cheap Charlie estimate back then was that a mere 235 armored Humvees would do just peachy-keen for the occupation phase of our misadventure in Iraq. Now, after 720-plus dead and thousands of wounded – and hundreds of Humvees destroyed or damaged – the same geniuses have suddenly concluded that we need more than 5,000 armored Humvees.



The brass’ lame excuse is that they didn’t expect things to turn violent in Iraq. And considering it took months for Rumsfeld to finally admit that our forces were engaged in a guerrilla war, upping the Humvee order early on might have interfered with the all-pervasive miasma of denial – and who knows how many precious careers.



The $180,000 vehicle is being built by Armor Holdings Inc. A year ago, the company was popping out 60 armored Humvees a month. This month, it will turn out about 200, and the goal is to kick up production to 450 units a month by November. If the Army can find the money.



But even if some gold-plated Cold War porker like the Air Force F/A-22 is canceled and the money is transferred to the armored Humvee account, the word is that Armor Holdings won’t be able to meet demand until sometime next year.



In the meantime, more Americans will be blasted to pieces, while those responsible are promoted or check out of the military to cash in as defense lobbyists.

http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=Hacks%20Target.db&command=viewone&op=t&id=68&rnd=67.16472818124863

 

[jmervyn]

Admiration for Rumsfeld? Be glad you're not on patrol in Falujah ...

Consider this article from the "Hack"

I've been on patrol in Safwan. Don't believe everything you see on the news, Ilad. At least Rummy attempted to rock the boat, unlike most other mili-crats.

However, Hackworth is generally on the ball. Are you supplying the article to confirm or deny my allegations? Sounds to me like confirmation, though he lumps Rummy in with the rest of the lot. Again, this is confusing the so-called doctrine (which I'm ambivalent about) with the insufficiency of our forces in conducting modern LIC (which I agree with, and agree with Hackworth's blaming the 'brass').

 

[llad12]

I've been on patrol in Safwan. Don't believe everything you see on the news, Ilad. At least Rummy attempted to rock the boat, unlike most other mili-crats.

However, Hackworth is generally on the ball. Are you supplying the article to confirm or deny my allegations? Sounds to me like confirmation, though he lumps Rummy in with the rest of the lot. Again, this is confusing the so-called doctrine (which I'm ambivalent about) with the insufficiency of our forces in conducting modern LIC (which I agree with, and agree with Hackworth's blaming the 'brass').

It was in line with the LIC and both the brass and Rumsfeld's poor choices in providing enough body armor and armored vehicles for protecting the "grunt" in the field.

I don't argue about Rumsfeld's military plan for initially conquering Iraq considering it's success (the only possible exception: our supply lines being stretched and underprotected). Now the political reasons and subsequent post-war problems, I will argue about all day .... :wink2:

 

[jmervyn]

It was in line with the LIC and both the brass and Rumsfeld's poor choices in providing enough body armor and armored vehicles for protecting the "grunt" in the field.

I don't argue about Rumsfeld's military plan for initially conquering Iraq considering it's success (the only possible exception: our supply lines being stretched and underprotected). Now the political reasons and subsequent post-war problems, I will argue about all day .... :wink2:

Again, the lightning bolt of consensus strikes the OTF, and considering our polar views it is pretty amazing. Again, I think the error is in considering the whole cock-up of "reconstruction" being part of the "Rumsfeld Doctrine".

I'll bet Rummy hates that phraseology now, since it inherently blames him for our inability to conduct LIC operations with Cold War force structures. Particularly because he is such an advocate of force modernization and revision - though I'm surprised that the "Stryker Bridgades" appear to be such a tame implementation of same. And trying to blame Rumsfeld exclusively for lack of funding & support in these matters is just wrong-minded; the Congress & Senate are surely to blame for throwing pork-barrel touchdowns when we need better boots and rifles. But such is the nature of our Gov't. Pity.

The supply line issue is an unhealthy trade-off when emphasizing Maneuver in any plan. I'd bet that the holes left in the plan by the 4th ID's lack of participation are partly to blame...

 

[dantose]

OK, I think the first problem is we have different views of where his doctrine begins and ends so lets talk about specific points instead.

1) Use of armor. Whether or not this was rummy's call, the shift in the use of the abrams was VERY effective. I think this is probably the first time we have seen how brutally effective the vehicle can be. I can get into specific examples but I doubt this will be a point of contention.

2) Amount of troops needed. Rummy et al dropped the ball on this one. we don't have nearly enough warm bodies over there. Gen. Shinseki's estimate of troops needed to enforce the peace in post war Iraq has been validated and I think one of the wors choices mde in the whole process was getting rid of him. I will say that the berets were a bad idea though, give me back my partol cap!

 

[Underseer]

Congrats, Underseer. With one sentence you have confirmed every suspicion I have about you.

Happy to disappoint you.

The "Rumsfeld Doctrine" (given the pretentious lie that that phrase encompasses), would be that offensive operations don't require overwhelming force as Powell used in the first Gulf War. It is essentially emphasising the principles of Maneuver and Offensive, sacrificing Mass and hoping to increase Economy of force. But I'm sure you knew that already. :sleep:

Yes, and Rumsfeld's insistance on waging war on the cheap, has had real-world costs. Try doing a little reading, starting with the articles at the beginning of this thread.

Oooh, so Saddam had a strategy! I thought he was busy trying to hide his skanky butt in a hole in the ground. But he was in charge all along! Wow, I'm amazed at your breadth of perceptive intuition about something you're obviously so well-versed in.

Right. All those weapons hid themselves in mosques. Saddam made no plans for guerilla warfare, and did nothing but hide in holes from before the invasion until he was caught. Thank you for setting everything straight.

I'm also glad to know that anyone can drive straight through Iraq - I'm surprised that the previously most fearsome military in the middle east hadn't set up concession stands for the visiting Iranian and Saudi military convoys.

Thanks for bringing up the Iranians, that's worth noting. Compare and contrast the response of the Iraqi army when Iran attacked them, to their recent response to the first stages of our invasion. When we waltzed through, they offered no credible resistance. They didn't even try.

Congrats! Your boy Rumsfeld's attempts at war-on-the-cheap works smashingly when there is no credible opposition!

Okay, so we should have invaded Afghanistan with several divisions, and let the locals go jihad on us the way the Soviets did, right? I'm sure that would have been much more efficient than using indigenous forces to overthrow a deeply-rooted, fanatically hostile tribal gov't, particularly once that gov't had assassinated the indigenous forces only charismatic leader.

So instead, we should just roll over and die and let the Taliban do whatever they want everywhere except for Kabul. Meanwhile, we'll let Afghanistan fall to hell because we're too busy concentrating everything we have on an invasion that has nothing to do with al Qa'eda. Brilliant.

I know, Underseer! Let's just put you in charge! I can tell with your grasp of geopolitical realities we'll be just peachy in a few months. What's that first step again? Send in more troops (per your article)? Gee, seems like I've heard a democrat say that before somewhere... but then, your pick for the next Executive has firsthand experience in that front. Or would it be appeasement and withdrawal, which has worked so well in North Korea?

Hey, appeasement! Nice of you to bring that up.

Let's see, what was al Qa'eda's NUMBER ONE demand? Oh yeah, pull American troops out of Saudi Arabia. What did Bush do? Rolled over and caved in to their demands by turning tail and running as fast as he could from Saudi Arabia. That's the way to show them who's boss!

OK, let's accept for a moment that sending in more troops would be an extremely bad idea and that anyone who would suggest such a thing is a complete idiot. As you say. So what is the Bush administration considering right now? That's right, they're busy flipflopping and admitting we need more troops. So by your logic that means they're idiots, right?

I don't know why I bother. But if anyone with grey matter is reading this, the reason the Executive is considering more troops is twofold:

#1 is that they don't want to be accused of screwing the troops (ala BJ Clinton) by not giving the local commanders what they need - these articles show that these accusations will fly regardless. Even when the funding of these things is being debated ("I voted for the 87 billion before I voted against it").

So Bush should increase troop levels to stave off accusations that are going to be made no matter what he does. Amazing use of logic.

#2 is that they badly underestimated the ability of our forces in peacekeeping and reconstruction duties, simply because that's not what armies are for, nor what the administration wanted to do with them. The fact that a lot of the units we have doing this work are being drawn from the Nasty Guard & Reserves is cheerfully ignored by the media.

That they badly underestimated the abilities of our foces in "peacekeeping" (your use of that word is completely delusional, but whatever) is at the heart of this discussion. If he had listened to those you insist were "obviously wrong," then we wouldn't be in this pickle right now.

Again, our current administration is making a horrible go at on-the-job training, but do we really want our country to spend massive amounts of blood and money building primitive countries up? If not, then criticising the current administration for their inability to turn sows' ears into silk purses is hypocritical at a minimum.

• We should be spending massive amounts of money rebuilding Afghanistan for a variety of national security reasons.
  
• We should not be rebuilding Iraq at all because we should not have invaded at all. We should have concentrated on al Qa'eda. I know it's hard for you to remember them, but they are the primary threat, not imaginary WMD.

 

[jmervyn]

Happy to disappoint you.

You don't disappoint me; you hardly rise to meet my expectations. I had prepared a more detailed refutation of your idiocy, but my computer locked up -doubtless disgusted by my stooping to your level
:surprise:

I guess that you not only don't get it, but never will. This is a conflict between the sworn enemies of the U.S. (be they Al Quaeda, Baathist, or just nutbags) and our armed forces. While you might prefer to sing Kumbaya and pass flowers, such tactics failed the Roman Empire in appeasing barbarians and they're failing the U.S. now. And I don't even consider the U.S. to be Imperialist or degenerate as you and your buddies do.

Please do us all a favor and continue to post your incorrect, illogical, inflammatory, and insane ideas and the articles that support them. God willing, the minor number of people who are moderate, or liberals who have some brains left, will realize that you have nothing worthwhile or constructive to say. If enough people realize that the polarization of America and placing of blame is a deliberately destructive mentality, we might have a future for our country.

I'm sure you want the last word. After all, it validates your existence, right?

 

[Underseer]

You don't disappoint me; you hardly rise to meet my expectations. I had prepared a more detailed refutation of your idiocy, but my computer locked up -doubtless disgusted by my stooping to your level
:surprise:

You have an amazingly well-developed self-image. Considering the content of your posts, I have a difficult time understanding why, but all the same I'm very happy for you.

I guess that you not only don't get it, but never will. This is a conflict between the sworn enemies of the U.S. (be they Al Quaeda, Baathist, or just nutbags) and our armed forces.

I get it just fine, it's you who has his head buried in the sand. This is a war between us and al Qa'eda. I know it's hard to keep track of all this hard stuff, but the Ba'ath party did not attack the World Trade Center, the Ba'ath party did not attack the Pentagon, and when millions of Muslim fundamentalist idiots ran cheering in the streets, they were hoisting signs and pictures depicting Osama bin Laden, not Saddam.

Even if you don't believe me, Bush himself is on record saying that Iraq "had nothing to do with the [sic] September the 11."

Try laying off the Kool-Aid.

While you might prefer to sing Kumbaya and pass flowers, such tactics failed the Roman Empire in appeasing barbarians and they're failing the U.S. now.

Now you've gone totally dellusional.

I am not the one who wants to appease al Qa'eda. You and your buddies are the ones insisting that we devote the vast majority of our resources attacking someone other than al Qa'eda. Bush was the one who appeased bin Laden by turning tail and pulling our troops from Saudi Arabia just like bin Laden demanded.

The result of all this madness: we've barely made a dent in al Qa'eda's operations, we've massively increased their recruitment to the point where we could never incarcerate al Qa'eda operatives faster than they get new ones, and we've turned our nation into international pariahs which makes it harder to get help from other nations (notice all the rats evacuating the sinking ship in Iraq).

And I don't even consider the U.S. to be Imperialist or degenerate as you and your buddies do.

Then you need to read the white papers written by the good folks at the Project for a New American century, provided you can get your head out of the sand long enough to do so. The Iraq operations has thus far followed their recommendations to the letter, and as per their own words, this is all about American hegemony.

Please do us all a favor and continue to post your incorrect, illogical, inflammatory, and insane ideas and the articles that support them.

So far, you have completely failed to show that anything I've said nor any article I've linked to is illogical, inflammatory or insane. You have however managed to offer a bunch of poorly thought out refutations ("he's flip-flopping on troop strength to stave off criticism that is going to come no matter what he does"), unsubstantiated declarations of your own expertise and ad hominem attacks on me.

God willing, the minor number of people who are moderate, or liberals who have some brains left, will realize that you have nothing worthwhile or constructive to say.

*yawn* More ad hominem and unsubstantiated assertions.

If enough people realize that the polarization of America and placing of blame is a deliberately destructive mentality, we might have a future for our country.

This is a joke right?

The incompetents in the Bush administration have perpetrated the most staggering and complete diplomatic failure anyone can think of and in the process have royally screwed up the war on terrorism. They've put us in a position in Iraq where there can be no good outcomes (attack and look like monsters or not attack and look weak). And for pointing out their inadequacies, I'm being "polarizing"? This accusation from the good folks that brought us eight years of unending attacks on the president about blow jobs? We might have a future for this country, but only if we get rid of the evil morons currently occupying the White House.

I'm sure you want the last word. After all, it validates your existence, right?

No, it prompts more half-baked responses from you, which are on the whole highly amusing.

 

[dantose]

there is so much bad info in this thread that I cannot even begin to correct it all. Someone, please shoot this thread and salt the earth where it is buried. failing that please shoot me.

 

[jimmyboy]

I wonder if we'd capture Bin Ladin and fix up Afghanistan by now if we had directed all of our resources in Afghanistan instead of dirverting it to Iraq.